The Gerrymander That Ate America

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
The high reelection rate is the problem, not the gerrymandering. The reason why there's a high reelection rate is because the states choose to protect incumbents, which in turn is because the congress rewards seniority.

The state's are run by incumbants. The incumbants rig the system to keep themselves in power and it has nothing to do with seniority even if incumbants try to use that as an excuse for their obviously self serving actions and their subversion of the democratic process.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Errr...how do the states protect incumbents other than with gerrymandering?

Bingo.

[DanS]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Errr...how do the states protect incumbents other than with gerrymandering?

They beat back term limits every couple of decades, even though term limits is popular.

[KrazyHorse]

We don't have term limits either. And term limits would not directly affect the reelection rate (which is based on incumbents who actually run).

[DanS]

The incumbants rig the system to keep themselves in power

Not quite the way it works. The incumbents tell their friends in state politics how much pork, etc. they are bringing home and that this could stop if they are voted out.

Congressional delegations normally have influence in state politics, but no direct power. Even DeLay had little direct power in Texas.

[DanS]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
We don't have term limits either. And term limits would not directly affect the reelection rate (which is based on incumbents who actually run).

Or rather, low turnover is the problem.

[Ramo]

Lack of term limits don't protect incumbents anywhere near as much as the huge partisan gulf in the vast majority of Congressional districts.

[KrazyHorse]

Turnover forced by a term limit doesn't imply change, since the new winner might well be from the same party as the incumbent.

Getting new faces in while keeping the same complexion is the reason that term limits (and other solutions which fix symptoms instead of problems) are dumb.

[DanS]

Ramo: The relative importance would of course depend on the permissable duration of holding the office.

[DanS]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Turnover forced by a term limit doesn't imply change, since the new winner might well be from the same party as the incumbent.

Getting new faces in while keeping the same complexion is the reason that term limits (and other solutions which fix symptoms instead of problems) are dumb.

I don't agree. Different people have different views and vote differently. Patronage follows the particular officeholder as well (except in those very few places where machine politics is practiced).

Term limits are chosen all the time by states for state offices and it works well. So why don't they extend this to their congressional delegations? No reason, other than the seniority system in the congress. Also, a lot of congresscritters stay past their time in part because they believe that they can do more good for their district ($$$) than a new guy.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Some PR systems (Single Transferable Vote, Party Lists in Multi-Member Constituency) still have districts, Odin.

Districts are much less of a problem in PR (though it weakens smaller parties) than in winner-takes-all elections. After all, the main parties do divide the amount of seats granted to the district. As such, there is a much better connexion between the amount of seats and the amount of votes. It avoids things like minority rule (something we see in the current Italian senate, and something we saw in the 2000 US presidential election)

[Apocalypse]

They act like DeLay was the worst or even the first gerrymander in Texas.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
They act like DeLay was the worst or even the first gerrymander in Texas.

True, one of the reasons that his gerrymander had so much impact was that it undid the prevailing democrat gerrymander.

But imo the problem is districts, we should go to some form of proportional representation in at large state elections. This would require a constitutional amendment, but as long as we are dreaming....

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Turnover forced by a term limit doesn't imply change, since the new winner might well be from the same party as the incumbent.

Getting new faces in while keeping the same complexion is the reason that term limits (and other solutions which fix symptoms instead of problems) are dumb.

Do you not know of the vast gulfs among various groups in each party? Incumbancy rates weren't this high in the past. While the same party usually won (the South was solidly Democrat after Reconstruction for example), you had members with different beliefs. In many districts you'd have something like 3 Democrats running in the general.

[Apocalypse]

Just so you know...before the republicans had a chance to gerrymand, my district in Texas had the republican guy getting 92% of the vote...with the only other guy running being the libertarian candidate. After the republicans gerrymandered, a democrat actually runs in the race.